Well, in the same way one can get the boot from LinkedIn for "violating professional guidelines," they'll say that without telling you what it was about what you posted or said. So, you never really know exactly what violated what and how.
Same here it seems. I went to the article and found their "reason:"
Well, in the same way one can get the boot from LinkedIn for "violating professional guidelines," they'll say that without telling you what it was about what you posted or said. So, you never really know exactly what violated what and how.
Same here it seems. I went to the article and found their "reason:"
"A Retraction of the Original Research Article
Physio-metabolic and clinical consequences of wearing face masks—Systematic review with meta-analysis and comprehensive evaluation
by Kisielinski, K., Hirsch, O., Wagner, S., Wojtasik, B., Funken, S., Klosterhalfen, B., Kanti Manna, S., Prescher, A., Sukul, P., and Sönnichsen, A. (2023). Front. Public Health 11:1125150. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1125150
The journal retracts the 5 April 2023 article cited above.
Following publication, concerns were raised regarding the scientific validity of the article. An investigation was conducted in accordance with Frontiers' policies. It was found that the complaints were valid and that the article does not meet the standards of editorial and scientific soundness for Frontiers in Public Health; therefore, the article has been retracted.
This retraction was approved by the Chief Editors of Frontiers in Public Health and the Chief Executive Editor of Frontiers. The authors did not agree to this retraction."
The mag responds to complaints (From whom?) and found them worthy. (On what basis?) Mag pulls the article. Authors disagree and no one knows why. Period. End of.
Well, in the same way one can get the boot from LinkedIn for "violating professional guidelines," they'll say that without telling you what it was about what you posted or said. So, you never really know exactly what violated what and how.
Same here it seems. I went to the article and found their "reason:"
"A Retraction of the Original Research Article
Physio-metabolic and clinical consequences of wearing face masks—Systematic review with meta-analysis and comprehensive evaluation
by Kisielinski, K., Hirsch, O., Wagner, S., Wojtasik, B., Funken, S., Klosterhalfen, B., Kanti Manna, S., Prescher, A., Sukul, P., and Sönnichsen, A. (2023). Front. Public Health 11:1125150. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1125150
The journal retracts the 5 April 2023 article cited above.
Following publication, concerns were raised regarding the scientific validity of the article. An investigation was conducted in accordance with Frontiers' policies. It was found that the complaints were valid and that the article does not meet the standards of editorial and scientific soundness for Frontiers in Public Health; therefore, the article has been retracted.
This retraction was approved by the Chief Editors of Frontiers in Public Health and the Chief Executive Editor of Frontiers. The authors did not agree to this retraction."
The mag responds to complaints (From whom?) and found them worthy. (On what basis?) Mag pulls the article. Authors disagree and no one knows why. Period. End of.
Big sigh...